Implementation of an Infectious Diseases Telehealth Consultation and Antibiotic Stewardship Program for 16 Small Community Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth improves access to infectious diseases (ID) and antibiotic stewardship (AS) services in small community hospitals (SCHs), but the optimal model has not been defined. We describe implementation and impact of an integrated ID telehealth (IDt) service for 16 SCHs in the Intermountain Healthcare system. METHODS: The Intermountain IDt service included a 24-hour advice line, eConsults, telemedicine consultations (TCs), daily AS surveillance, long-term AS program (ASP) support by an IDt pharmacist, and a monthly telementoring webinar. We evaluated program measures from November 2016 through April 2018. RESULTS: A total of 2487 IDt physician interactions with SCHs were recorded: 859 phone calls (35% of interactions), 761 eConsults (30%), and 867 TCs (35%). Of 1628 eConsults and TCs, 1400 (86%) were SCH provider requests, while 228 (14%) were IDt pharmacist generated. Six SCHs accounted for >95% of interactions. Median consultation times for each initial telehealth interaction type were 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 5-10) minutes for phone calls, 20 (IQR, 15-25) minutes for eConsults, and 50 (IQR, 35-60) minutes for TCs. Thirty-two percent of consults led to in-person ID clinic follow-up. Bacteremia was the most common reason for consultation (764/2487 [31%]) and Staphylococcus aureus the most common organism identified. ASPs were established at 16 facilities. Daily AS surveillance led to 2229 SCH pharmacist and 1305 IDt pharmacist recommendations. Eight projects were completed with IDt pharmacist support, leading to significant reductions in meropenem, vancomycin, and fluoroquinolone use. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated IDt model led to collaborative ID/ASP interventions and improvements in antibiotic use at 16 SCHs. These findings provide insight into clinical and logistical considerations for IDt program implementation.

A Delphi study to validate competencies required of Air Force Medical Surgical (46N3) nurses in mobilized environments.

The objectives of this study were to develop competencies for wartime and operations other than war for 46N3 Medical/Surgical Air Force nurses and to validate those competencies among a group of experts in the field. The sample consisted of 109 nurses with mobilization experiences. A Delphi consensus technique was used to validate both the importance of competencies required in a mobilization environment and to determine the level at which those competencies should be practiced. A web-based questionnaire was used to collect responses during three rounds of data collection. At the end of round 3, 83% of the importance statements achieved consensus whereas 67% of the level of practice statements achieved consensus. Those importance items validated were traditional assessment and interventions skills that represented noncontroversial practices. Those items not validated were either controversial or perceived as not pertinent in an austere mobilization environment.

Inefficiencies and vulnerabilities of telephone-based communication between U. S. poison control centers and emergency departments.

CONTEXT: Poison control centers (PCCs) and emergency departments (EDs) rely upon telephone communication to collaborate. PCCs and EDs each create electronic records for the same patient during the course of collaboration, but those electronic records are not shared. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the current, telephone based process of PCC-ED communication as the basis for potential process improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted at one PCC and two tertiary care EDs. We developed workflow diagrams to depict clinician descriptions of the current process, descriptions obtained through interviews of key informants. We also analyzed transcripts of phone calls between emergency departments and the poison control center, corresponding to a random sample of 120 PCC cases occurring January 1-December 31, 2011. RESULTS: Collaboration between the ED and PCC takes place during multiple telephone calls, and the process is unsupported by shared documentation. The process occurs in three phases: notification, collaborative care, and ongoing consultation. In the ED, multiple care providers may communicate with the PCC, but only one ED care provider communicates with the poison control center specialist at a time. Handoffs occur for both ED and PCC. Collaborative care planning is common and most cases involve some type of request for information, whether vital signs, laboratory results, or verification that a treatment was administered. We found evidence of inefficiencies and safety vulnerabilities, including the inability of PCC specialists to reach ED care providers, telephone calls routed through multiple ED staff members in an attempt to reach the appropriate care provider, and exchange of clinical information with non-clinical staff. In 55% of cases, the patient was discharged prior to any synchronous telephone communication between the ED care provider and a PCC specialist. Ambiguous communication of information was observed in 22% of cases. In 12% of cases, a PCC specialist was unable to obtain requested information from the ED. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Inefficiencies and vulnerabilities occur in telephone-based PCC-ED communication. Prudence begs consideration of alternative processes and models of ED-PCC communication and information sharing, including a process that supports collaboration with health information exchange.